Religion of Peace strikes again!

[Christians4LessGvt]

Two terrorists behead a British soldier on a London street,
first such Islamist outrage in the West

DEBKAfile Special Report

May 22, 2013

 
The terrorists jumped on their victim from this car shouting Allahu Akbar

Two as yet unidentified Muslin terrorists chanting Allahu Akbar assaulted a British soldier on a street close to the Royal Barracks at Woolwich in southeast London, shot him, hacked him with knives and a machete and finally beheaded him. This happened in broad daylight Wednesday afternoon, May 22, in the presence of dozens of witnesses, the first such outrage seen in a West European capital.

Witnesses told the police that the two terrorists covered in blood had held up body parts of their victim and shouted: "We swear by Allah never to stop killing you."

British TV stations are airing gruesome scenes of the episode.

The terrorists drove up to their victim in a car, jumped out and after the murder wandered about in the area, apparently lying in wait for more soldiers to come out of the Royal Artillery command barracks 400 meters from the scene of their attack. 

London police reached the scene after 20 minutes. When the two killers ran towards them brandishing knives and a firearm, the police shot and injured them. They were taken to separate hospitals and placed under heavy guard in case of attempts to rescue them.
Police sources said later they were treating the incident as a politically-motivated Islamist terror attack, but have not identified the killers.

In the absence of Prime Minister David Cameron in Paris, Home Minister Theresa May summoned the Cobra emergency committee into urgent session. After examining intelligence input, the committee must decide whether the Woolwich outrage was a lone incident or to raise the terrorist alert level in London and the rest of the country.

Cameron cut short his trip to Paris and returns to London Wednesday night. He will deliver a speech to the nation after chairing a second emergency committee meeting Thursday morning.

http://www.debka.com/article/22986/Two-terrorists-behead-a-British-soldier-on-a-London-street-first-such-Islamist-outrage-in-the-West

[Christians4LessGvt]

"As Muslims We Reject Human Rights"

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3842.htm

[Christians4LessGvt]

Woolwich soldier killer on VIDEO!!!! Machete Killer talks on camera calmly!

[BSB]

It's guys like this that give terrorism a bad name.

BSB

[Xavier_Onassis]

As a political tool, terrorism can be effective. It got the French to leave Algeria, after all.

Unfortunately, it has not been effective in getting the goons that run Algeria to do much that would benefit the Algerian people, and Islam is not to blame for that, at least in any direct manner.

This particular incident has no possibility of causing any sort of change to the advantage of the terrorists in any way, though.

[BSB]

I saw an interview of someone who knew one of the killers and he wouldn't condemn the act. They've lost any general support they might desire for their cause. Like the Boston Marathon bombers these guys are nothing but a couple of punks. Al Qaeda's original leadership could at least carry on an intellectual discussion about their philosophy and goals. Radical Islam may linger but clearly for all intensive purposes it's finished.   

BSB

[Xavier_Onassis]

It seems to be finished with regard to having any sane  or attainable objectives. The Algerian Resistance had an attainable objective: the French could leave Algeria. Al Qaeda's objective of some sort of Caliphate encompassing the Muslim World is entirely unattainable. If the US, China, Russia and all the Arab countries actually wanted this, it would STILL be unattainable, because the forces of modernity are irreversible. You are right: the Boston bombers and these clowns in the UK are just punks.

[Plane]

We are not accustomed to the forces of modernisation being used in the service of tyranny.

Robin Hood doesn't exist in North Korea.

Why is an enormous Caliphate "technically"impossible?

[Xavier_Onassis]

For the same reason that an enormous state of English-speaking nations (USA, UK, Australia, NZ, Ireland, Fiji, perhaps even India) is impossible. Or a huge Catholic nation, or a Baptist one, take your pick and think about it.

[BSB]

It seems to be finished with regard to having any sane  or attainable objectives. The Algerian Resistance had an attainable objective: the French could leave Algeria. Al Qaeda's objective of some sort of Caliphate encompassing the Muslim World is entirely unattainable. If the US, China, Russia and all the Arab countries actually wanted this, it would STILL be unattainable, because the forces of modernity are irreversible. You are right: the Boston bombers and these clowns in the UK are just punks.

Yes, the Caliphate was dead in the water. But the Muslim world had a legitimate ax to grind regarding western Imperialism. That complaint however, while still legitimate, is being superseded by their own inherent shortcomings. Or at least that's how it appears to me at the moment.


BSB

[Xavier_Onassis]

We are not accustomed to the forces of modernisation being used in the service of tyranny.

-===================================================
You mean like the British using machine guns on the Zulus, or the Chinese strafing Tibetans?

In this case, the Boston bombers used rather simple bombs made of pressure cookers,and in the UK, knives and machetes were used.
The truth is, anyone fighting a war will use the technology that they feel best suits the situation. The political system fighting that war is quite often irrelevant.

I doubt that a lot of Al Qaeda supporters would characterize their movement as in defense of tyranny. The seem to think that they are fulfilling the desires of Allah and combating Satan.  Saudi Arabia is as much a tyranny as Iran. The difference is that it is a tyranny seen as being on our side.

[Plane]

We are not accustomed to the forces of modernisation being used in the service of tyranny.

-===================================================
You mean like the British using machine guns on the Zulus, or the Chinese strafing Tibetans?

In this case, the Boston bombers used rather simple bombs made of pressure cookers,and in the UK, knives and machetes were used.
The truth is, anyone fighting a war will use the technology that they feel best suits the situation. The political system fighting that war is quite often irrelevant.

I doubt that a lot of Al Qaeda supporters would characterize their movement as in defense of tyranny. The seem to think that they are fulfilling the desires of Allah and combating Satan.  Saudi Arabia is as much a tyranny as Iran. The difference is that it is a tyranny seen as being on our side.

It is streatching a bit to call machine guns modern , the invention is more than a century ago and the common use is fully a century ago and the availibility of machine guns if practicly universal.

What I had in mind is the modern ability to gather and organise information which is still improving at a rate that is hard to get used to .

Our government knows where we are a lot , and if the government were nefarious this coould be enhansed and intensified to the point that they always had us on camera.

I don't want to argue that Saudi Arabia is not a tyrany , because that slices too thin, more like you are right and it is a tyrany that we don't want to attack because there is no better alternative .

When a tyrany is against us , that should give us two reasons to be against it , when a better government can be encouraged ,three reasons.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Saudi Arabia is at least as oppressive as the Iranian government. I do not believe that it is the duty of this country to overthrow either of them, by the way. Machine guns were high tech when they were used against the Zulus. And the two latest attacks by wacko Muslims were not high tech at all. I don't see your point here. The Ayatollah used cassette tapes of his speeches to inspire a rebellion against the Shah. Cellphones were used in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt to overthrow those governments as well. Whatever can be used, will be used. Nuclear bombs have not been used at all and poison gas so far has not been used as much as it could be.

[Plane]

  A modern state might make it impossible to escape scrutiny with means an order of magnitude better than have been available before.

   The USA is not oppressive enough to really make us regret that our every word is never forgotten, and that our biometrics can be filed forever.

Right now it is anyway, if we ever become intolerably repressive nothing will be gotten away with and there will be no hiding.

[Xavier_Onassis]

When Khruschev visited the US in the 1950's, he wanted to visit Disneyland, and his desire was denied. The press made fun of him for wanting to ride in a teacup and to have his photo taken with Goofy. But what he most wanted to see was how Disney managed to get people to wait in lines gladly for hours to do something as silly as a three minute ride in a teacup.

I agree that the technology now exists to track nearly everyone at all times in everything they do. I agree that this is a danger. At the moment the danger is more from corporations than the government. I recently flew to Atlanta and went through security. It did not take long, the HSA people were efficient and it was only somewhat annoying for about two minutes. No one complained. But still, there is a potential there.